Ron Paul on Rush Limbaugh Friday

The Liberty Committee (via email) | 11-27-02 | Press Release

[Diddle E. Squat]

Ah heck, even this Longhorn wouldn't mind if A&M won this year. Ya can't beat a good rival forever, better to lose now(with our season once again down the drain) than in the next couple of years when we have a chance at going to the mythical nat'l championship game. Plus I want RC to save his job, both for sentimental reasons and to keep A&M from becoming a legitimate powerhouse.

Then again, our home winning streak is nice, and we'll have a chance to soon have the longest in the nation, seeing as how Miami will lose to Va Tech.

[Fish out of Water]

What difference would my opinion on a particular issue make to an explanation of the congressional procedures inherent in the two party system created by our Constitution?

[Texaggie79]

both for sentimental reasons and to keep A&M from becoming a legitimate powerhouse.

I think the TV announcers share your sentiments. Why in the hell do they think it's ridiculous to get rid of the man? One of the winningest coaches in College football? yeah well, when we need to beat the likes of Baylor, North Texas, Rice, La Teck, ect, I will trust RC, but try looking at his BOWL record. He's a joke.

[rambo316]

All the Rushiites out there are going to say that Ron Paul is a Conspiracy Theorist.

[blackie]

"Ron Paul is a Conspiracy Theorist."

Close, very close...

[tankrshr77]

Paul is a nutcase. I initially thought he was great until I began actually reading his speeches and viewpoints. I don't know why so many (relatively speaking) like him. There is cognitive dissonance involved.

That's funny, I thought he was a nutcase until I began actually reading his speeches and viewpoints. Now I think he's great.

[4CJ]

PCareful now. Walter Williams believes in the right of the states to secede. Not a very popular opinion around these parts.

Careful now. Walter Williams believes in the right of the states to secede. Not a very popular opinion around these parts among socialists/communists/dictators and anti-Constitutionists.

[u-89]

Because I completely disagree with the Libertarian stance on foreign policy.

Our founders talked about free trade with all and entangling alliances with none. If we had stayed the course could you image the amount of treasure, blood and grief we would have been spared? We went down the path to empire long ago and it is the classic case of the sins of the fathers visiting the sons for generations to come. We opened up Japan with gun boats in Tokyo bay which stared the ball rolling into a rivalry for dominance in Asia and the Pacific that ended in WW2 (pacific theatre). Today people talk of inevitable war with China - a mirror of the rivalry with Japan. The War with Spain, the Boxer Rebellion, all the countless little incursions, if back in the 19th century business interests hadn't gotten government thinking of the need to "project force" around the world and being a great power like the Europeans we would have been spared much. This is not some "hate America" rant. It is cold analysis of where we are. This is not "isolationism". Japan was closed, China was once closed. Free trade with all is not closed. Being an economic power does not mean having to be police chief also. Protecting our shores or our shipping is not the same as making sure everybody gets along or bends to our will. Is that idea so objectionable?

[Texaggie79]

Indeed it is. With technology our world is growing smaller. If we are going to be the big player in the world economy, we cannot go in alone. We NEED allies. That means that we must protect them. The Libertarian dream of a Nazi dominated Europe would have eventually required action by the US, because it would have eventually posed a direct threat to us.

What exactly were the founders, of whom you speak, telling FRANCE when begging for their assistance? Was Franklin telling them that they should mind their own business? Would France have been better off if they had? Would we?

[u-89]

Well first off France helped us to get back at England not for love of our ideals and I do not see what they gained for it other than a brief satisfaction of seeing their nemisis lose one. Would you spend our blood and treasure on such pettiness? there is a thing called the public trust and that is not merely about purse strings. Government's chief role is to secure our life, liberty and property. The older I get the more precious life is, and not just mine either. I remember a woman I was talking to once broke into tears at the thought of her older brother who was killed in WW2. 50 years later she still had a void and a pain that was genuine. Also I knew a man, WW2 vet of much heavy combat, he was a survivor but his son did not survive Viet Nam. This man had never had a lucky break in his life as far as business went but his kid was smart and had potential. A lot of the old man's hopes and dreams were pinned on his kid. He was shattered. Why do I say all this? Because life is all we have and taking one or losing it is no small matter. Our 3 score and 10 years is short enough if we make it that far and the younger one dies the more tragic it is. And not just for us but for people on the other side of the world too. I am no pacafist or coward but I am miserly with other people's lives but too many of our leaders see people are abstracts and mere numbers. One of the neocons, I think it was Max Boot but not sure, was complaining in the Wall Street Journel after the Afghanistan campaign that the victory was not costly enough for us and therefore we don't take our mission serious enough. Complaing that not enough of our men were killed is pretty ghastly but your betters see it as noble.

You mention Nazis so let me repeat from my first post that sins of the fathers can visit the sons for generations. We were officially neutral for much of WWI yet our banks made large loans to England and France and we were manufacturing large amounts of ammunition for the Allies. We took sides and Germany noticed. We went to war with them over some of our ships being sunk. Now why was it that they would sink our ships? If we had not become entangled not only would have we been spared much blood and treasure but what would the world have been spared in termoil to this day? Most agree no such thing as Nazism would have emerge, no WW2. One can make all kinds of arguements for one world government, peace and safety and talk of nasty wars past but the fact is our leaders were charged with securing our rights not the world's and by being the world's protector and enforcer we are less secure and will only have bigger government, higher taxes and less freedom.

[Texaggie79]

I have family that fought in WW2, some that died. It is a tragedy. However, never have I thought that it would be better to let thousands, if not millions of more innocents die, so that AMERICANS could live.

Why are our lives more important? If we became a country that did, absolutely nothing to stop such evil, we would have surely fallen by now, in our own greed and selfishness.

[u-89]

Why are our lives more important? If we became a country that did, absolutely nothing to stop such evil, we would have surely fallen by now, in our own greed and selfishness.

It is not that our lives are more valuable than others it is by what right do we force others to sacrifice and die for a cause that we hold dear. Individuals should be free to go and fight around the world for their pet cause if they wish. Say what you will about the Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War, but these commies and others were willing to go fight for a cause in which they believed. Would you like to have been drafted to fight for communists if our leaders thought it a good idea? That is tryanny. It is because of greed and selfishness of certain large financial interests and their government tools, Napoleon want-to-bes and do gooders that this last century was so bloody.These wars need not have happened as I explained in the above couple of posts. One military action begot another and another and now look at the mess the world is in and we are in yet another war. Do you really wish to equate liberty, peace and prospereity with greed? Our forefathers esablished a counrty where we could be free and a government to protect our rights. Where in the constitution does it say our mandate is to rule the world and stop evil? National Defense should be explicitely just that not exporting democracy and peace with force of arms and certainly not conquering countires so certain of our businesses could have exclusive rights to resources.

[Texaggie79]

Oh, but here's were you lose me..... I don't support the draft. At least, not in it's current form.

The only time I would support a mandatory draft would be when the US's borders were being attacked.

[Texaggie79]

Our forefathers esablished a counrty where we could be free and a government to protect our rights. With the military help of ANOTHER nation...... Never forget that.

[u-89]

Yes France did help us but did we return the favor for the King or to Napoleon? We accepted their help but did not forge an alliance so we would be entangled in their wars. Was that wise or ingratitude? forget the draft in the Spanish War example. Would you support sending our volunteer defense forces to take sides in a civil war? Whether Spain were ruled by communists or Franco is it worth the lives of our boys who signed up to defend the homeland? Or taxing our citizens for such an endeavor? Forget the Spain hypothetical, what about Viet Nam? Why were we there? Why was it expanded? so LBJ wouldn't look soft on communism thus giving the Republicans an issue for 64. Why did he not get out? so he wouldn't be the first president to lose a war. The point is the lives of our countrymen are precious and we should take great care of them and be most frugil. Look at the cost of Viet Nam; 58,000 dead, a couple hundred thousand wounded, the homeland divided, the gold reserve expended and for what? I do not see anything but much more sorrow in our future. The reality is we are so far down the road there is no hope of turning back. Not that our foriegn policy couldn't be transitioned but that there is no hope for a leader to come along who sees the need. This doesn't mean though that I should not continue to cherish the ideals of liberty as outlined previously. Reality and aspirations rarely co-exist but knowing that they once did makes the thoughts a little bitter. </p>

[Texaggie79]

The point is the lives of our countrymen are precious and we should take great care of them and be most frugil So are the lives of our allies. All that seek liberty. Of course we should enter all foreign battles, however, when we are the only ones to stand up for people who are trying to achieve liberty in the midst of a common enemy, we should, as France did, assist. If Israel were to be invaded, if Taiwan were to be attacked, I am more than willing to volunteer to fulfill my duty as a noble American.